<aside> <img src="/icons/bell_blue.svg" alt="/icons/bell_blue.svg" width="40px" /> Below is general summary of the potential election administration vulnerabilities identified in Arizona.
To read a detailed analysis of the vulnerabilities, intended to help pro-democracy groups protect our elections and fuel corrective action, please click here to request access. Please include the name of your organization in the request.
By requesting access, you’re opting in to receive email notifications when our vulnerabilities research is updated with analyses of additional states.
</aside>
Arizona’s vote counting and certification system has a strong statutory foundation, clear binding rules via the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) and strong checks and balances available to the statewide executive actors if something does go wrong. In recent years, courts have enforced election law. Following the 2022 elections, the EPM was updated to make clear that Boards of Supervisors have no authority to delay certification and that a full hand count is beyond the scope of a hand count audit.
However, there is significant election denier activity within the state, from sitting government officials and outside groups, and election officials who have been willing to sabotage the vote process. The majority of election vulnerabilities in Arizona are due to bad faith actors blatantly violating settled election law. These potential vulnerabilities should be monitored and defended, so that they are not exploited by individuals who could pose a threat to free and fair elections.
Concerning findings do not mean an official will seek to undermine the next election, just as a lack of findings is not a guarantee an official will faithfully execute their duties. This research provides guidance on where attention should be focused to ensure that elections are administered properly according to the law. Notably, research showed that the vast majority of local election officials are dedicated public servants, committed to running free and fair elections.
Below, we highlight areas that have been targeted in the past and potential areas that may be vulnerable this election cycle. For more information on these officials and counties to monitor this November, see Arizona Election Officials: Findings.
Arizona is a target of election deniers and a focus of election conspiracies, with Maricopa County as a center of criticism, especially by officials from rural counties. Bad faith actors spread false claims about election processes and outcomes, making claims about voting machine hacks, fake ballots, ballots bleeding, and “ballot mules.” The strength of the election denial movement in Arizona has led to local officials refusing to certify election results, losing candidates dragging out election contests, the legislature improperly inserting themselves into election administration in several ways, and more.
The Arizona State Senate initiated an extralegal audit of the 2020 presidential election results in Maricopa. This partisan effort received national attention due to the extensive controversy over the audit and the outlandish conspiracy theories associated with it. Arizona legislators pressured county officials to count ballots by hand rather than using machines. These lawmakers claimed hand counting ballots was legal and claimed the Secretary of State’s Office and Attorney General were lying to the contrary.
Poll workers and ballot counting officials play a critical role in election administration. Statute and the EPM provide clear requirements on how these positions should operate. Nonetheless, the individuals in these roles make many first-line decisions about everything from voter eligibility to adjudicating voter intent. These boards are one area election deniers could infiltrate and cause havoc.
Our review identified seven officials who publicly denied or questioned the results of the 2020 election. This election denial ranged from sharing conspiracy theories about fake ballots being counted to outright claims the election was stolen or rigged. These officials were primarily concentrated in Cochise, Mohave, and Pinal Counties. More broadly, Arizona election officials attacked Arizona’s voting systems, particularly mail-in and early voting, under the guise of election security. Some officials were also willing to cast doubt on Maricopa County’s elections, often while assuring constituents of the validity of their own local elections.
A handful of Arizona officials’ past statements or actions raise concerns about anti-democracy activity or their willingness to disobey the rule of law. Pinal County Supervisor Jeff Serdy, a one-time member of the Oath Keepers, tracked down Department of Justice election observers present during the 2022 election to monitor them. In November 2023, Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould said he was “willing to risk getting thrown in jail” to pursue hand counts. His colleague, Supervisor Hildy Angius, publicly backed Cochise County Supervisors Peggy Judd and Tom Crosby after they were indicted for their refusal to certify the election by the legal deadline. In Yavapai County, Supervisors Craig Brown and Harry Oberg have spoken at meetings of the Oath Keepers.
Candidates who lost elections employed various delay tactics to attempt to prevent the finalization of election results. The most common tactic had been the use of the courts to draw out a legal challenge to the election. Fortunately, meritless cases will eventually be tossed by a judge and those who bring frivolous lawsuits may face consequences.